Search

Abstract Background Two trials were conducted to compare emergency department patient comprehension of rapid HIV pre-test information using different methods to deliver this information. Methods Patients were enrolled for these two trials at a US emergency department between February 2005 and January 2006. In Trial One, patients were randomized to a no pre-test information or an in-person discussion arm. In Trial Two, a separate group of patients were randomized to an in-person discussion arm or a Tablet PC-based video arm. The video, "Do you know about rapid HIV testing?", and the in-person discussion contained identical Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-suggested pre-test information components as well as information on rapid HIV testing with OraQuick®. Participants were compared by information arm on their comprehension of the pre-test information by their score on a 26-item questionnaire using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results In Trial One, 38 patients completed the no-information arm and 31 completed the in-person discussion arm. Of these 69 patients, 63.8% had twelve years or fewer of formal education and 66.7% had previously been tested for HIV. The mean score on the questionnaire for the in-person discussion arm was higher than for the no information arm (18.7 vs. 13.3, p ≤ 0.0001). In Trial Two, 59 patients completed the in-person discussion and 55 completed the video arms. Of these 114 patients, 50.9% had twelve years or fewer of formal education and 68.4% had previously been tested for HIV. The mean score on the questionnaire for the video arm was similar to the in-person discussion arm (20.0 vs. 19.2; p ≤ 0.33). Conclusion The video "Do you know about rapid HIV testing?" appears to be an acceptable substitute for an in-person pre-test discussion on rapid HIV testing with OraQuick®. In terms of adequately informing ED patients about rapid HIV testing, either form of pre-test information is preferable than for patients to receive no pre-test information.

Abstract Background Lack of knowledge regarding preventive health services for women might impede campaigns to expand these services in the emergency department setting. For 18–55-year-old English-speaking women visiting an urban emergency department, we aimed to: (1) Ascertain their knowledge regarding the applicability, purpose, and recommended intervals of three women's cancer screening and three contraceptive methods; and (2) Determine if patient age, race/ethnicity, medical insurance status, and current or recent usage of these methods are associated with greater or lesser knowledge about them. Methods Emergency department-based survey on recent or current usage and knowledge about Pap smears, breast self-examinations, mammograms, condoms, birth control, and emergency contraception. Analyses included calculation of summary statistics and creation of multivariable logistic regression models. Results Of 1,100 patients eligible for the study, 69.9% agreed to participate. Most of the participants were < age 35, white, single (never married and no partner), Catholic, and had private medical insurance. Participant's recent or current usage of a particular cancer screening or contraceptive method varied by type of method: Pap smear within the past year (69.1%), breast self-exam within the past month (45.5%), mammogram within the past year (65.7% for women age 45–55), condom usage during every episode of sexual intercourse (15.4%), current usage of birth control pills (17.8%), and ever use of emergency contraception (9.3%). The participants correctly answered 87.9% of all survey questions about condoms, 82.5% about birth control pills, 78.5% about breast self-exams, 52.9% about Pap smears, 35.4% about mammograms, and 25.0% about emergency contraception. In multivariable logistic regression models, survey participants who had private medical insurance and those who recently or currently used a given screening or contraceptive method had a greater odds of correctly answering all questions about each cancer screening or contraceptive method. Conclusion Although these female ED patients demonstrated strong knowledge on some women's cancer screening and contraceptive methods, there were several areas of knowledge deficit. Women without private medical insurance and those who have not used a particular cancer screening or contraceptive method demonstrated less knowledge. Reduced knowledge about women's cancer screening and contraceptive methods should be considered during clinical encounters and when instituting or evaluating emergency department-based initiatives that assess the need for these methods.